>> for state department officials resigned after reports for lack of security at the u.s. benghazi, libya. wittiest ambassador and three other americans were killed. at 8 a.m. eastern the senate foreign relations committee, we will have that on c-span2. later in the day, we will head over to the house side of the capitol.

we have live coverage at 1 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. >> our first experience was to come in a different way than every of them appear, probably will never happen again in history. it's interesting because after dad was sworn in we went in and took a picture, photo of the family behind the oval office desk, and that night we didn't get to move into the white house because nixon had left so quickly, so unexpectedly, they left their daughter and son-in-law, david eisenhower, to pack all their clothes and belongings. literally took seven or eight days. we had to go back to our little house in alexander virginia, suburbia, munich, the neighborhood was surrounded by secret service. we been living there. dad was vice president. i've never forget that night mom was cooking dinner. literally, we are -- [laughter] -- sitting around the dinner table and mom is cooking dinner,

and she looked over at my dad and she said, jerry, something is wrong here. [laughter] >> you just became president of the united states and i'm still cooking. [laughter] >> steve ford and jenna and barbara bush on growing up in the white house. sunday evening at 7:30 p.m. eastern and pacific. it's part of american history tv right through christmas day on c-span3. >> senator daniel inouye died monday at the age of 88. senator inouye, and world war ii medal of honor recipient spend 50 years in the senate. members of the public will be allowed to view his casket in the rotunda. friday at 10:30 p.m. eastern, the public memorial will be held

at the washington national cathedral. >> senator kay bailey hutchison, republican of texas, is retiring from the senate after serving four terms. she will be replaced by republican ted cruz, a former texas solicitor general. she delivers her farewell remarks on the senate floor. this is 25 minutes. week there would have been so much joy in the halls of the capitol bringing with the laughter and the anticipation of our seasons happiest time. but in just one weekend, a sadness have said in with the

news of the massacre of innocent children in newtown, connecticut, followed by the loss of our wonderful colleague, senator daniel inouye. so i will leave this extraordinary institution and experience with a heavy heart for those who have been lost just in the last few days. i do want to thank you for asking me to represent them in washington. i want to thank the many people who have served on my staff for almost 20 years. i have to say i am touched that both senses, on both sides of this room are filled with my staff members who have been so hard-working, so loyal, and have produced so much in 20 years for our state and nation. and i think them. i do want to thank my colleagues and all the people who work

here. senators, but also those who work behind the scenes to make our lives as good as they can be with the hard hours that we all have. those who keep our buildings safe and clean, the work in the library, the shops, the cafeterias, and to guide tens of thousands of tourists through our nation's beautiful capital each year. i want to thank my husband, ray, and her two children, bailey in houston, they are 11 now, and so many of my colleagues that were here when i started bringing my children as babies here, have watched them grow up. the senate isn't easy on families. they sacrificed so i could serve the people of texas, and i'm grateful for their patience and generosity. they have loved coming to the

capital during these times. 11 years for the children, and 20 for my husband, ray. and i know my children fondest memory if i ask them what either of them are most about this is to the capital, is playing soccer in the russell building hallways in the evenings when it is clear to and i would not be here today if it were not for my parents who gave me the gift of strong values, unwavering support, and education to be whatever i want to be. i must say that my parents were surprised when they saw what i want to be. they would never have thought that their daughter growing up in lamar texas, a town of 15,000 people would think that she could be a united states senator.

we had a wonderful public school system, and i'm proud to say i am a product of public education. my public schools in lamar, which were excellent, and the university of texas and university of texas law school prepared me to be what i could be. so it has been a privilege to walk these halls in the capital of the worlds greatest and and longest serving democracy. i think back to the days that stand out in our memories. september 11, 2001, of course is the one none of us will ever forget. we know exactly where we were the minute we knew there was a terrorist attack on america. and though we suffered a horrific attack, the strength, resilience and extraordinary acts of kindness of the american people showed the world that attempts to destroy our way of

life would never succeed. on that day, no one could get in or out of washington, and many communication networks were inoperable. so when the pentagon was hit, and the capitol was evacuated, my staff and i walked one block to my home on capitol hill. just as example, the husband of my office manager worked in the section of the pentagon had been hit, so we were on the phone, the one phone that we had, the hospitals, the police, anyone that we thought might be able to tell us if he was safe. thankfully, he was fine. but there were so many who waited for hours, who called hospitals to hear from their loved ones. sometimes the news was a relief, and sometimes they waited in vain for good news. and i have to say that it was an

incredible moment when the senators who could find each other, where ever they had gone from the capital, we finally gathered early -- well, late afternoon in the capitol police headquarters to talk to our leaders who had been taken to an undisclosed location. and they said we don't want anyone to come, but we are going to the steps of the capital to hold a press conference. we don't want anyone there because we don't know if it's safe, but we want to tell the press that we are going to be open for business tomorrow, and to the nation's business. even though there was the suspicion that the capital had been on the terrorists list of targets. every single one of the senators, and there were i think

60 to 70 that admitted to the capitol police, did come to the capitol steps, as did members of the house of representatives. and after the press conference was held by the leaders, all of the several hundred who had gathered, spontaneously broke out singing god bless america. that was a time that said this is the strength of our country. we will not be defeated. as i exit the senate, i am aware that we are divided. as a legislative body and as a country. i do not think we have different goals, not here and not in america. but we do have different ways of reaching them. congress offers a great deal of criticism, or partisan acrimony. but while we may disagree politically and and/or our opposition in this chamber, it

is the conversation behind the scenes that cements and defines our relationship. i will leave the senate i have worked with men and women of great patriotism, intellect and heart, on both sides of the aisle. i would like to thank my colleagues, democrat and republican for the many wonderful years working together. we seconded one another at times and engage in rigorous debate. and others. the american people should know that either way we our goalie joe and we all understand that our states have different needs and there will be differences in priority. but in the senate, an adversary today will be an ally tomorrow. it is a rare occasion for acrimony to turn personal. madam president, it would be my party hope that this

collegiality will not be lost. protecting the rights of the minority has assured that every senators voices are heard and every state representative is heard. as intended. open debate and open amendment are what differentiates the senate and house. when our committees function, we passed bills and vigorous markups, we've put the bills in shape for floor debate. if they don't go through committees and are not allowed floor amendments, the quality of the legislation suffers, and mistakes are often made. let me give you some examples of how relationships can produce results. during the anthrax scare, the hart building was closed for a month which made it very difficult, of course, for senators based there to do their

work. self-centered diane feinstein's staff joined in my offices in the russell building. my chief of staff at the time gave him full access. one of senator feinstein's staff members commented on that, a republican office giving democrats a free range? but my chief of staff just said, they have full access because we trusted them. senator feinstein and i have teamed up to pass important legislation. the hutchison and feinstein overseas basing commission that studied the training capabilities and costs of overseas military bases to determine their value compared to american bases. this resulted in consolidation and closures that brought thousands of troops back to the united states where training and rapid deployment were superior. we passed the

feinstein-hutchison breast cancer stamp bill. through voluntary purchase, has raised $72 million for breast cancer research. that was senator feinstein's idea. and senator feinstein and i took the amber alert for abducted children nationwide which has accounted for rescuing, documented almost 600 children since its passage. i remember when senator hillary clinton stopped by with her chief of staff to which -- wish me happy birthday the first year she was innocent. with just a few months after she arrived and my staff was right, and possibly a bit starstruck to see the former first lady walking into the room. we went on to work together in vital voice, global partnership, dedicated to supporting and empowering women leaders and social entrepreneurs in a

merging economies. we also teamed up with senators mikulski and collins to assure other schools have the option to offer single-sex schools in classes. after i visited with secretary of education rod paige, the young women's leadership academy in the harlem area of new york city, one of the first and most successful pilot projects for girls public schools with which i know the presiding officer is very familiar. and i remember the time i invited senator barbara mikulski to texas, because she and i have worked together supporting for so many years, and this year have been, she chair, and i ranking members of the appropriations subcommittee. we went to visit the johnson space center because i wanted her to see the great work they are doing there. and then i took her to the

houston rodeo, because i wanted her to see the texas culture. well, i'm not sure that the senator who grew up in the inner city of baltimore knew exactly how people would dress at the rodeo, but suffice it to say, there were a lot of rhinestones and cowboy boots and big hair and big hats. senator mikulski whispered to me during this time, kay, if we were here monday and we went to the chamber of commerce, do these people look like this? and i said, yes, pretty much. so senator mikulski and i also teamed up to pass the homemaker ira, to make sure that our stay-at-home moms and dads would have the same opportunity for retirement security savings that those who work outside the homes

have. and it has been a huge success. we also cosponsored the early breast cancer program. she is a skilled legislator and a dear friend of senator jay rockefeller has been an outstanding chairman of the commerce committee. we don't always agree, but as the lead democrat and republican, we have worked hard to reach consensus, and we have gotten things done. that faa bill started the planning for the next generation of air traffic control systems. the highway bill, the nasa reauthorization that ensured we would keep the focus on our space program that has been instrumental in our national security and economic development, which -- with tremendous help from senator bill nelson was the only one among us today who has actually

been into space. in a congress that has been marked by little progress, we have found a way forward. for some, that might not be something to take pride in. but we have serve the american people by passing legislation that keeps the country running, and i'm very proud of what we've been able to accomplish. our commerce committee has been one of the most productive in the whole of congress, and i count him as a friend. maria cantwell and harry reid and i have worked to address the issues of our state, to have the same deductions as those who have income taxes, though we do not, and that the parity has been so important. leader mitch mcconnell has guided our party and our conference through the past six years. he is a gifted leader, and one that i have witnessed time and again has come up with strategies that have gotten

things done in the right way. senator jon kyl and i've worked on immigration and attacks released. senator lamar alexander and i have championed the america competes at so we would continue the priority of scientific research, and that we would never fail to invest in our future because it was the seed corn for our economy. i'm very pleased the distinguished ranking member of the judicial committee, and the finance committee, finance committee now and judiciary before, is also on the floor and has been a wonderful friend to me, helping me in my very first election when he was a rock star at my fundraisers in texas. and i think senator orrin hatch for his long leadership in this body.

and i've had the wonderful good fortune to serve with two colleagues of my home state. first, senator phil gramm who was a wonderful mentor and colleague. they broke the mold after senator graham, and we always enjoyed our school rivalry, he being a texas aggie, and me being a university of texas, they like to call them -- but we are proud longhorns. and i've had a great relationship with my other senator who is going to soon be the senior senator from texas, john cornyn. now, john cornyn i'm very pleased to say is going to get the opportunity that i've had all these years when people trip up and introduced me as the senior citizen of texas. i'm happy determined that over to my colleague, senator cornyn. and i'm very proud that he's going to be the deputy

republican leader in the next congress. i know he's going to be a steady hand at the wheel, as we try to steer the ship of state in the right direction. he has proven time and again that steady leadership is the one that rises to the top. and i thank him for being on the floor as well today. in fact, i want to praise our texas congressional delegation. we call it team texas. it is the spirit that holds our delegation together, republicans and democrats. i've noted that there are those in washington who think texans are little too loud, and we have a little too much fun. but i can assure everyone that team texas hearts are as big as our mouth. madam president, it has been a long and wonderful 19 plus years. we hit the ground running and we have never stopped.

when i was first elected in a special election in 1993, we had to, actually for, full plane loads of people fly up for my swearing in because it was a special election. we filled the entire gallery. and those rowdy texans were so happy to watch my little swearing in ceremony, and it was a great day for me as well as my wonderful and loyal friends and supporters. i started having weekly constituent coffee that first year because there were so many visitors from texas, and i wanted to make sure that at least there was one time every week that any texan who was here that wanted to see me could come and visit and was welcomed. so every thursday morning around nine or 9:30, the person in charge of this first effort was

the wife of a three-star general, who volunteered her time in our offices. and i think it was as much her handling of the event as the idea itself that led many other senators to take up his practice and get a chance to always visit with their constituents, at least once a week, if they were otherwise going to committee meetings or having to do their work and not able to see everyone. so i want to thank gert clark for putting her stamp on arsenic hospitality. some of the most powerful moments that will stay with me forever were spent with members of our military. visiting them where they are at harm's way across the world is one of the most moving of all experiences. i will never forget the first time in the early 90s flying into sarajevo in an undercover c-130 that was disguised as a red cross delivery of peace,

2000 pounds of peace which we actually had on the c-130, and i have to say that my good friend, daniel inouye, was on the trip with us as a look over at his in the desk with the white flowers. as was senator ted stevens, and we flew in to see our troops in bosnia. later, i went back to bosnia to spend easter with our troops where we had the most beautiful easter sunrise service i have ever attended, or will ever. it was in an open air hanger with our servicemen and women who were deployed there. for the first time, it was a texas guard unit that was in command of the base, and it was the first time since the korean war that we have a guard unit in command of an operation overseas. and they did a great job, which led to many guard units from

other states also taking command of basis and operations. i flew out of baghdad, this was within the last few years, in another c-130 when there were no lights on the plane and no lights on the runway. because it was trying to make sure that there was not any clue to the enemy that maybe we were leaving when they were firing missiles around the airport. or the times that i had visited afghanistan, where the first time i visited with senator mccain, and our troops were sleeping on cots. they were probably six or 700 cots in an old russian built aircraft hangar, before anything had been brought in for living quarters for our troops. all of their belongings were under their cots, and that was all they had for that first

mission into afghanistan. madam president, i have always been one that has such great respect and gratitude for our men and women in uniform. they put their lives on the line and pledge to give their all for our freedom. the power to wage war is an enormous one, and the weight of its responsibility should rest heavy on our shoulders. i leave this chamber proud to have worked to assure our men and women in uniform have the best training, the best equipment, and the quality of life to do the job we are asking them to do. because of my deep respect for our armed forces, my first choice of committees when i came in 1993, was armed services. and i was honored to be the first woman in 20 years to chair a subcommittee on armed services. the woman before me was margaret

chase smith. as the only woman to chair the senate republican policy committee, i was pleased to be part of republican leadership for many years. again, the first since margaret chase smith. when i first run for office, i said i wanted to make things better for our sons and open for our daughters. iz descendent knowing the january will see the greatest number of female senators in our nation's history. and i now the torch will be carried on by the next generation. madam president, it's no secret that texans have a particular sense of pride. i am no exception. i have deep texas roots. the senate seat that i hold in my mind belonged to thomas jefferson rusk, my great, great grandfather's law partner and good friend. they both signed the texas decoration of independence from mexico in 1836.

that reminds me everyday that we must protect the freedom that so many of our ancestors fought, reduce and retain. my colleagues sitting on the floor is in the san houston one, and that is a proud line, too. thomas jefferson rusk and sam houston were the commander-in-chief and secretary of war of the texas army when we fought for independence. and it is so fitting that those two were the first to select a senators when texas became a state in 1845. each summer, i take a week to to work one part of texas on a bus. it has been so much fun after we did the first one, which was the el camino -- that we had just passed a bill to designate at the national historic trail, and we went from the louisiana

border to the mexican border, and it took us a week on the bus. it was so great that we have done it every year since, in a different part of texas. it is my state staff favorite every week as well. i am one of the two people who have had the opportunity and the absolute pleasure to visit all 254 counties in texas. i had that texans from all walks of life who have opened their homes, their businesses, and shared their stories. madam president, i will be sad to leave, but it is time. i believe strongly that we should keep the lifeblood of congress pumping. it is good to have new ways of legislators come in with fresh ideas and perspectives up after every election. but while i believe that new generations should invigorate congress, i also want to say a few words of praise for

experience. knowing the history of an issue is essential to monitor progre progress. knowing what an agency should be doing, knowing what was put in law and why, allows for better oversight. the expertise of our longer serving members is an essential part of good governance. i hope that some of the priorities i've championed will continue. investment in science technology and higher education encouraging morgan people to study science, technology, engineering and math, known as the stem, to make sure that we are bringing those young minds with the creativity and engineering background to create the economy for the future is so important. that's been the lifeblood of our economy, and it must continue.

saving the manned exploration program and ensuring the long-term future of nasa, and essential generator for our economy. ensuring that stay at home moms and dads who work so hard raising children and contributing to the community have spousal iras to save for retirement. and easing the marriage tax penalty a doubling the standard deduction are just a few of the things that i hope will continue to be championed as i please. it has been such an honor to serve in the united states senate. and i leave with the hope that the values that built america into the greatest nation on earth will be protected so that future generations will have the same opportunities that we have had in this great country, and that our forebears sacrificed so much to ensure that we do. thank you, madam president, and i yield.

... kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. mr. kyl: thank you, mr. president. i am deeply honored to have served for 18 years as arizona's tenth senator and for four terms in the house of representatives before that. before that. now it's time to move on. my successor, senator-elect jeff flake s a good and honorable public servant who will work hard on behalf of our great state of arizona. and my colleague, john mccain, will continue his long and ted candidated public service -- dedicated public service as well. i appreciate the remarks he delivered here yesterday. i want to say thank you to my colleagues for your friendship. it's been a privilege working

with so many of you on both sides of the aisle. tha while it's true that washingtone would benefit from more civility, the farther behind the scenes is an extraordinarily collegial institution, and i will certainly miss that aspect i alsoi want to thank my staff, past and present, for working so many long hours and for spending so much time analyzing thessue issues that will determine america's future.ermineur mr.e. president, a farewell speh is often the opportunity to reminisce about the past. i actually don't believe that would be the best use or either your time or mine.. instead, i'm going to comment on some of the biggest public policy changes america faces and recommend principles to guide the way forward. i was first elected to public office when the reagan revolution was in full swing. maximizing freedom guided the

policies of that era with tremendous success. s my goal as a public servant hast been to advance and maintain aoe consensus in favor of the so-called three legs of the rayt a began public policy stool. one, dynamic growth-orientedm)xl values that make limited government possible; and, three, a national security commitment that emphasizes a strong and sovereign america. in each of the three areas, maximizing freedom and the positive results that flow from that is the goal. turn first to economic freedom. the reagan years showed us that expanding economic freedom should be the north star, the guiding light, of the united states policy because it's the best way to achieve sustained and broad-based prosperity for all. free markets, low tanches and limited government -- low taxes,

and limited government allow citizens to use their resources and to keep more of the fruits of their labor, to encourage people to start businesses. free markets promote economic well-being for all. cutting taxes at the margins -- that is, reducing the rate of tax on the next dollar earned -- encourages growth. raising taxes can have the opposite effect. nobel economist edward press scott of arizona has found that higher marginal tax rates are the reason europeans work one-third fewer hours than americans. when marginal rates are lower, prosperity flows to other sectors of society, allowing business to create jobs and new products, compete for workers to raise wages and i vest their profits, which can then be lent to other entrepreneurs. everyone gains in a free economy. as john f. kennedy put it, a rising tide lifts all boats.

look at what free enpricent pris achieved? millions of new private-sector jobs were created and the stock market soared tripling in value over eight years. the lower tax rates and reduced regulatory burden produce add more robust economy and a more robust economy meant more revenue for government. similar resulted attended the tax rate reductions during the presidency of george w. bush. many policy-makers have forgotten these lessons. in 2008, america's score in the index of economic freedom has declined significantly -- i mean, since 2008, to the point where we are no longer considered a free economy as we were then but now, rather, a mostly free economy. that's what happens when you dramatically increase government spending and regulations.

and now we're on the verge of a massive tax increase which could undermine small businesses and stifle economic growth america badly needs. policy-makers must focus on the basic laws of economic inputs. a faulty view has gained traction in recent years, that consumption fueled by government spending actually creates economic growth. it doesn't. it just moves money around, taking from people who produced it and could productive spend it it and could productive spend it or reinvest it and giving it to government to spend. consumption is the wrong targe . people only change their spending habits when they know they will have greater consistent income over time, fot example, when they receive ae raise at work or get a permanent tax cut. that's why temporary stimulus tax gimmicks don't work. t if the problem with the economy is supposedly lack of consumption, the governmentcan'

can't solve that problem by spending for us. after all, it's our tax money a that's being taken out of the t economy andhe spend. and spent.it and when government borrows, it will eventually have to tax the people to pay back what it has e borrowed. there is no free runs. for the -- lunch. for g the government to spend, taxpayers have to give up well canes yen economics assumes thaz the government is more efficient are. p that assumption has proved inb correct time and again.kers wise policymakers will fiewpped the right -- find the right balance. they will rememberor that therey no w fixed income economic pie that legislators should try tond divide. they will remember tec that lab, capital and technology are the real factors that drive long-term economic growth notin.

government spending. and they will stop shacklingnd would-be entrepreneurs and job creators with ever more burdensome regulations. and here's some more good news about growth-based free enterprise. it's the most moral economic system ever devised. for three reasons. first, it's premised on the truth that success only comes by supplying something to others that they need or want. in the bargain both sides benefit.seco second, this system has produced incredible wealth around the world lifting millions out of poverty. no economic system can come close ifping helping that many people. in helping that many people. so it is the most moral and economic system in providing material benefits.t of but that's only part of the story. free enterprise provides moreres than increased income anderit material and materiality. those things help, but they

aren't what make humans really thrive. the key determinant of lasting happiness and satisfaction is what american enterprise institute president arthur brooks has called earned success. people areled happiest when thee is --th when they create value e the lives of others and genuinely earn their income regardless of how it is. brooks put it very well in his book "the battle."earned and i quote: earned success gives people a sense of meaningg about their lives, and meaningo also is a key to human flourishing i. reassures us that what we do in life is of significance and of value for ourselves and those around us.s to true lu flourish -- truly flourish, we need to know that our endeavors have a deeper purpose. end of quote. the earned success that comes from doing a job well explainsin

why fabulously wealthy people often choose not to retire after they earn their fortunes, they're motivated by the satisfaction that comes from spending the day productivecreatively, innovating solving their problems. oftentimes tangible value in thi lives of others. the effect of earned success also explains why people who win the lottery often become depressed when they find out that free money offers hollow joy. becauseress free enterprise pros success, it ismo the most moral economic system ever created. it is also the fairest system because it rewards merit, hard work and achievement. this is what brought my my grandparents to this country along with millionsry, of other immigrants. incidentally, real free enterprise has no place for crony capitalism because it doesn't have government picking

winners and losers or. the biggest economic favor that policymakers can do for fol americans is to follow the reagan legacy and support free a market policies that create morp opportunity, more mobility and more earned success and, therefore, more human flourishing possible for every e american.erpr free enterprise is the only economic system that g gives uso many opportunities to pursue fundamental happiness and lasting satisfaction. this brings to the second of theegs legs of the reagan stool thestio question of values. president reagan devoted his presidency and, indeed, his entire career in public life to the expansion of economi freedom. but he also understood that economic freedom depends on certain cultural underpinnings.d underpinnings like marriage,l family and personalonsi responsibility. he that family breakdown and social pathologies would ultimately make people

more reliant on government and, thus, more eeg or for government to expand, sapping them of individual responsibility and the need to care for others inal the family or the community. in short, reagan understood that economic conservativism wouldot not survive, could not survive unless social conservativism survived too. the united states has a stronger philosophical attachment todom freedom and limited governmentao than any other nation on effort. and yet -- on earth. and yet i also recognize that w manyor cultural trends are workg against us. for example, nearly 43% of all american children are now born to unmarried women compared with fewer than 11% in 970. without stable two-of participant families, the government wears more of a -- bears more of a burden in caring for these children.rogr growth in food stamps makes the point. ha point this makes it

harder to maintain a political consensus that fairs economic#=n entrenching it. why? to quote princeton scholar robert m. george, "limited government cannot be maintained where the limited culture collapsed and families easily dissolve. where these things hangars the health, education, and welfare functions of the family will have to be undertaken by someone or some institution and that sooner or later will be govern governed." in other words, in the absence of two-parent families, the government fills the financial role of the father, to say nothing of the critical roles fathers play. over time, more and more americans have come to rely on the government to provide for their most basic needs, needs a this two-parent families have traditionally supported. and those americans are now competing for increasingly scarce resources. this is not to judge the status of these families or to suggest

that it's in any way inappropriate for the government to provide the help much it is precisely that we do care that we provide help through government and other institutions. but that is an action to ameliorate the effects of a condition, not to change the underlying condition. i believe we must do all we can to revive the marriage culture, increase family stability, and ensure that more children grow up in a two-parent household, strong families have always been the key to upward mobility and economic security. if we want to remain an aspirational society, a society where children have the opportunities and the resources to pursue their dreams and create a better life, then we must encourage young americans to embrace what ron has consistence and elizabeth sawhill have called the "success sequence." that is very simple: you complete high school, get a full-time job, get married

before having kids. you follow that you are virtually guaranteed to avoid poverty. the marriage culture is fighting an uphill battle against forces threatening to overwhelm it. everyone who believes in limited government and economic freedom and the real self-worth and well-being of our children should do their part in rebuilding the institution of marriage. no other social cause or campaign is more vital to america's future. when it comes to shaping our culture, we must also improve the quality of our students' civic education. i fear that many american students are graduating from high school and college with only the vaguest knowledge of our founding and our constitution, what it means to be an american. it's hard to defend rights if you don't know what they are or where they came from. schools shape students' views about our priorities as a society and what principles are worth standing up for. instead of teaching history and the fundamentals of america's

founding, many curriculums focus on small, politically correct topics such as gender, class, diversity, and ethnicity. the entertainment industry and many major media outlets, too, dwell on these topics and lend them outsized importance. these topics tend to be political and they emphasize what divides us. they ignore our common heritage of freedom, equality, self-reliance, human dignity, faith, and community. as whic william bennett recently wrote, "we look at what students are being tawrkts it's ease sigh to see why more of them prefer to see why more of them prefer politics, he writes, is downstream from the culture. bennett also noted that platot said the two most important questions in society are who teaches the young and what do we teach them. i believe we need to think long" and hard about these twowo

questions. it's time to have a serious discussion about civics education. don't understand or appreciate the foundations of g our republican government, those foundations will graduallyion erode. as president reagan famouslygan said, freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. we didn't pass it on to our did children in the bloodstream. it must be fought for, protected and handed on for them to do the same. t moving to the last leg of the reagan policystool, national security. i've tried to follow the legacy of pursuing peace throughe strength. as president reagan once said os the four wars in my lifetime,tie none came about because america was too strong. president reagan knew that weaknesses tempts aggression, and he believed that te

tenderness b meant making sure -- and this is a quotation from him -- making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the united states concludes the concludes to him outweigh any potential gains.on once hece understands that, he attack.nt we maintain theai peace through our strength. only weaknesses only invites aggression. mr. president, america's strength remains the best guarantor against major armed conflict between nation states. while it's not our role toce t police the world and we couldn't it in any event, it is alsos true that we are the indispensable nation to help safeguard liberal values arounde the world. ame for america to continue its leadership role, however, we must have a military with bothbi the capability and the flexibility to address a wide range of challenges and, yes, it means adequately funding the military requirements among other things by avoiding the devastation she questionsationes

of necessary investments. nuclear modernization, missile defense, terrorist threats and transb national law. for the first time in the history of u.s. nuclear policy, the president has placed nucleae disarmament and non-proliferation rather than nuclear deterrence atop the u.s. nuclear agenda. ironically, more treaties or unilateral actions that take usl closer to nuclear disarmamentert will not help address the nuclear dangers we face today. such actions will only serve tot make our allies, who depend on u.s. nuclear guarantee, more nervous while potentially weakening the credibility of u.s. nuclear deterrence. senate support for the 2010 new s.t.a.r.t. treaty was based upon a commitment to modernize our aging nuclear complex and weapons. as that commitment starts to tha decay, it will become increasingly difficult tocult rebuild the responsive nuclear infrastructure that even the president agreed is necessary

for further nuclear reductions as well as the continued c credibility of the u.s. nuclearr arsenal. note that i said for further nuclear reductions. they areeduc literally dependent upon the u.s. modernization. the new s.t.a.r.t. proceedings made it clear that the nuclearhu balance between the united states and russia under new s.t.a.r.t. force levels would be stable except, of course, for the huge diversity or disparity, i would say, in tactical nucleac weapons that russia enjoys. but under this stability there would be no be incentives to strike first during a crisis, nor would there be incentives to grow our respective nuclearhoul arsenals in the future. we should, therefore, think very carefully before we contemplate changes to longstanding u.s. nuclear deterrence policies orer pursue further reductions ins support of the president's the armament agenda. we absolutely cannot know for n certain that fewer numbers of

weapons will make us safer. in fact, henry kissinger and brent scowcroft recently us reminded us, quote: that strategic stability is not inherent with low numbers of weapons. indeed, excessively low numbersn which surprisewh attacks are conceivable, end of quote. policymakers would do well to heed the advice of winston churchill offered in his last address to the united states congress. be careful, he said, above all things not to let go of theet atomic weapon until you are sure and more than sure that other means of preserving peace are in your hands. against the backdrop of more than 100 million war casualties justfr the 30 years before development of the atomic weapon, churchill's advice iss sobering, indeed.

the second challenge we face is with respect to missile defense. recent events illustrate the importance of missile defense ir today's security environment. israel's iron dome missile defense protected its population against rocketnst attacks, giviy israeli military and political d authorities the time and thesp space necessary to avoid a ultimately what madeul a truce possible. as secretary of defense panetta said at the time, ire dome does -- iron dome does not start wars, it helps prevent wars.else elsewhere in the world turkey has requested nato patriotot batteries to protect it against syrian againstic missiles --ea ballistic missiles. rec meanwhile, japan, south korea and the united states recently activated their missile defense systems in response to north korea's long-range missile response. yet another reminderthat that te threat doesn't stand still. and in response to iran's

longer-range ballistic missiles, nato has agreed to support the deployment of short, medium and long-rage ballistic missiles iranianth nuclear blackmail. so the benefits of defense are well appreciated, especially by those most directly affected or threatened. it's possible to hit a bullet with a bullet. a we've debunked the cold war argument that missile defenses contribute to a new arms race. in fact, since the united states withdrew from the abm treaty, we have reduced the number of deployed nuclear weapons from 6,000 to 15150 under -- 1550 under the new s.t.a.r.t. treatyn we must continue to demote theis notioning that u.s. vulnerability is a source of stability when, in fact, the most important constitutionalnsi and moral duty of any president is to protect the american

people. we've made some progress in pro deploying ballistic missile defenses since the united states withdrew from the apm treatyn in -- abm treaty in 2002. here are just a few missile defense challenges for the future. first, over the past four years the obama administration has consistently reduced funding for missile defense. sec, it has refocused funding on regional missile defenses thaten protect others at the expense of protecting the homeland of the united t states and developingnd future technologies.s. third, the administration has scaled back the number of ground-based interceptorsting protecting the homeland from 54 to only 30. meet the standard established by the missile defense act of 1999 which required a defense capable of addressing accidental and unauthorized attacks from any source. and fourth, the administrationao has no plans to modernize

interceptors that are more than 20 years old. that's the technology that'ss protecting america today.. and it's, therefore, unlikely tl keep up with future threats. and as i said, there's very little funding devoted to neweat breakthrough technologies thate could provide even more sta effective defenses for the united states such as lasers ane space-based interceptors. we should remember as general jacoby has explained to congress, and i quote: no thanco protecting the united states from a limited icbm attack, end of quote. finally, one of the greatest of thes we face today stems from russian attempts to limit the development and deployment ofnta u.s. and allied missile defense systems. the united states cannot allow russia to dictate to us limits on the capabilities of u.s. missile defenses. if they could be effective against a russian launch, then so be lau it. that's what it means to protect

americans from potential threats. if the russians argue that theyo pose no possible threat, then our, sill defense -- missile defense should be irrelevant to them. from negotiation on the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty to threatenino the united states and nato in an attempt to limit our planned deployment in europe, the russians have never abandonedo their goal of limiting the u.s. nuclear defense. the answer is u.s not reset, but recommitment to the principle that the most moral way to protect the american people from missile attacks is by missile defense. the third national security challenge i would briefly discuss is thedisc threat of political islam. to defeat an enemy, we must first know the enemy, and thatng includes calling them by their name, radical islamists who seek to impose their ideology to rule others, to govern political, social and civic life as well as religious life. intelligence is key to defeating

political islam. the foreign intelligence surveil lance act and the patriot actt are good examples of the tools that we need enemies are planning, who theyy are before they strike. these tools cannot be allowed to expire. the patriot act reflects a recognition that investigators chargedinvestigaters preventingr acts of terrorism should have at least the same investigative tools as federal agents charged with targeting mobsters orra health care fraud.ud the fourth and last national'll security challenge i'll mention is the rise of transnational las which poses a serious threat to our government was founded on the principle that laws should be made through the democratic process so that the people could hold their legislators accountable. the american people elect their. own representatives and, therefore, control their own affairs. that's the theory. americans want the benefits of global cooperation based on widespread acceptance of useful

international rules of the road, of course, but such rules --e like our domestic laws -- should be adopted through democratic processthat assure accountability on the part of the legislators. they should not be imposed by - international bodies with zero accountability to the american people. the rise of global governments, governance, i believe, g challenges this principle. and by global governance i mean the use of multilateral treaties and other agreements to delegate power on matters such as the environment, natural resourcesoc and individual rights to newpowe international bodies with broad powers and broad l or -- littleh or no political accountability.s such issues have traditionally beenot decided by the laws of nations. some treaties would directlyiona implicate u.s. national capability.as one such treaty was defeated by

the senate in 1999, the comprehensive test ban treaty, which would have jeopardizedy america's nuclear deterrent by preventing us from ever again conducting tests of our nuclearo weapons. we should never give up the v right to verify that our nuclear deterrence works. it's critical that we know that our allies who rely on thesey weapons know and that our potential adversaries know or our weapons will not haveons deterrent effect.ave i urge my colleagues to defeat this to treaty again should it t up before the president -- before the senate in the president's second term. mr. president, in conclusion, in all three areas that i'vee've discussed here we've hadad successes, and we've hadi t failures. i think of what margaretas thatcher said as she was leaving mix office, that there are no -- public office, that there are no permanent victims. you can haved so accomplished se of your policy goals. that doesn't mean there will

always be a consensus in favor of your preferred policies orr that your accomplishments won't be reversed in the future. as i look back on my 26 years in congress, my 18 years here in the senate, i'm deeply proud of everything we've accomplishedccm from tax relief and welfare reform to missile defense and nuclear policy.sile not to mention things of primara or importance to my state. but i also understand that political victories can be ephemeral because in a democrate a democrat bait over these issues never really ends. w it's alwaysil ongoing. i will miss being involved in these i important debates and fromfr now on my role in these matters will be as a private citizen. but i still aim to be involved.e it's been an honor, really the privilege of a lifetime to serve, and it is difficult to i says good-bye. but i will depart capitol hill with enormous faith in the

american people, a profound appreciation for the miracle of the american republic and a resilient optimism about america's future.a's i thank my colleagues. >> i don't want to spoil the book for you, so let me just say that the year began with the american republic in grave danger. the union armies were struggling to grow virtually overnight from a few thousand men scattered across the continent to more than half a million. the inexperienced officers thrust into command of these raw volunteers were stymied by the sheer size of the breakaway confederate states of america. which covered a space larger than the entire european territory conquered by napoleon. lincoln's closest adviser was

secretary of state william henry seward. seward said even smart people failed to see the difficulty of the union's task. they didn't apprehend the vast extent of the rebellion, as he put it. military operations, to be successful, must be on a scale hitherto practically unknown in the art of war. >> the second year of the civil war, a strained federal government and weak union forces. david von drahle on 1862 and abraham lincoln's rise to greatness, part of four days of booktv this weekend and right through christmas day on c-span2. >> our first experience was to come in -- [inaudible conversations] >> we're live on capitol hill this morning as senior state department officials are testifying before the senate about the september 11th

benghazi consulate attack. these state officials have resigned following the release of a report detailing the security failures that led to the deaths of ambassador chris stephens and -- stevens and three other americans. >> the hearing will come to order. my apologies to everybody for the switch in time, but as everybody knows, with the loss of our colleague, senator inouye , the course of events was uncertain yesterday, and it was decided that he, his remains will be brought here at about 10:00. and everybody felt that it would be inappropriate for us to simply be having a hearing and prevebt senators from being able to attend, and all of us would like to attend that.

so we are going to try to compact this into the period of time we have between now and about quarter of so that senators can get over there to take part in that ceremony. in addition, obviously with the switch in time, some colleagues and others have not yet gotten here. i do want to share some thoughts at the appropriate time about senator lieu garre and senator webb and senator demint who will be leaving the committee, but i think i will wait until some more of our colleagues are here to be able to share those thoughts. want to than everybody for joining us -- thank everybody for joining us this morning. as everyone is aware, secretary clinton is recovering from a serious virus and con cushion -- concussion, and given her condition it was simply not possible for her to appear here today. we all wish her a speedy recovery, and in her place we have both deputies from the

state department. and i want to thank hem for coming in on -- thank them for coming in on short notice. let me emphasize this, please, to everybody: all of you who know hillary know that she would rather be here today. i know how deeply she feels the importance of the discussion that we're having today, and i assure you it is not her choice that she is not here today, and she looks forward to appearing before the committee in january. and i want to make that clear. i also want to emphasize that every member of this committee felt the loss of ambassador chris stevens and his team in a very personal way. we knew chris stevens well before he came before us for confirmation. he'd been a pearson fellow for senator lugar and the committee. we knew the depth of his character, of his intelligence and his dedication. his death was a horrible blow in

personal terms to the committee as well as to the country, to his family. it evoked an outpouring of emotion in our committee from the con loll dense book in the office in the capitol to the private gestures of members of this committee who shared their grief in private ways at senate 116 signing the con doll lens books, touching the picture, saying a prayer. equally tragic was the loss of three courageous men whom i had personally never met, but whose families i had a chance to greet and hug when the military brought their loved one's remains back one last time to andrews air force base. that heartbreaking and solemn ceremony brought home the impact of our nation's loss. glenn doherty was a former navy seal. he was also from my home state, and i talked a couple times with his family. and tyrone woods was a former seal. sean smith, an air force

veteran. all people for whom service to country was their life. and so today we again say thank you to all of them, to the fallen and the families. they all gave to our nation, and we're grateful beyond words for their service and their sacrifice. from the very beginning of the benghazi events, every member of this committee has shared with the president and secretary clinton our determine craigs to get all the fact -- our determination to get all the facts about what happened and why in benghazi. we submitted many questions to the state department to be incorporated into this investigation, and we're very pleased that they have been. we've had a number of classified briefings for our members, and yesterday the committee heard from ambassador tom pickering and admiral mike mullen. we heard them deliver a very frank and comprehensive set of findings of the accountability review board. ambassador pickering and admiral mullen are tw of america's most

distinguished -- are two of america's most distinguished and capable public servants. ambassador pickering has served as ambassador to seven countries, among them india, russia, israel and other important nations. admiral mullen, as we know, was the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. i think that their backgrounds, their service to our country showed up starkly in the quality of the board's report, and i want to thank them for their extraordinary service to our country, and i want to thank secretary clinton who appointed them, who collected them. the report pulls no punches. it tackles head on many of the questions that we've beens asking. the report makes 29 recommendations in total, five of which are classified. secretary clinton has embraced every single one of them. in fact, she's gone above and beyond the board's recommendations by taking immediate steps to strengthen

security at high-threat posts and requests from congress the authority to reprogram funds to increase diplomatic security spending by spend 1.3 billion. in washington where too often we see the recommendations of blue ribbon panels ignored, delayed or de23ered as they were for a long time on even the 9/11 commission, i think the secretary's swift action underscores how determined she is to apply the lessons of benghazi. clearly, mistakes were made. and we see, we learned of those yesterday in very stark terms, about the mistakes leading up to the attacks. the report makes that very clear, and one of the most candid and important observations was the failure of certain leaders to see the forest true the tree -- through the trees. there were clear warning signs

that the situation in libya had deteriorated, and going forward it is important -- and i think it's important for all of us to think in terms of going forward -- that we need to do a better job of insuring a free and open dialogue among ambassadors, their embassy security can personnel and officials in washington where decisions on security, staffing levels and funding are made. now, as we draw the lessons, i want to be crystal clear about something else. congress also bears some responsibility here. congress has the power of the purse. we use it for any number of things, but it's our responsibility. and for years we have asked our state department to operate with increasingly lesser resources to conduct essential missions. and because of the gridlock and excesses in the senate and congress itself, we have not even been able to pursue the regular order of authorizing

legislation. that must change. and in the next session of the congress, i hope it will. as in any government entity, we know that when a budget is cut and money is fungible, you stretch every every dollar. so for some time now overseas resources have been withheld or cut on an important -- and important policy objectives have in some cases been starved. consider last year we spent approximately $650 billion on our military. by contrast, the international affairs budget is less than one-tenth of the pentagon's. secretary gates has spoken about this and strongly urged the congress to redress that imbalance, but we haven't yet. admiral mullen once pointed out, quote: the more significant the cuts, the longer military operations will take, and the more and more lives are at risk. so we need to make certain that

we are not penny wise and pound foolish when it comes to supporting america's vital overseas interests. adequately funding america's foreign policy objectives is not spending. it's investing in our long-term security. and more often than not it saves far more expensive expenditures in dollars and lives for the conflicts that we fail to see or avoid. we need to invest in america's long-term interests in order to do the job of diplomacy in a dangerous world. and this report makes that crystal clear. since 1985 i've had the privilege, as most of you, of making official journeys to one trouble spot or another. i've met a lot of our men and women in the foreign service, as all of you have. and we've sat and talked about the work that they do and the lives that they lead. they spend years learning the languages of a country so that they can be on the front lines

of direct diplomacy. foreign policy outdoors, as my dad used to call it. when my father served in berlin after world war ii, i remember my mother sometimes looking at the clock nervously in the evening when he's late for coming home the dinner. in a city where troops guarded the line between east and west and the rubble of war was still very fresh. but my father knew that what he was doing was worth whatever the risk might have been, and so do the foreign service personnel that we send all over the world today. they want to be accessible to people on the ground. they need to be accessible to people on the ground when they're representing our country. they want those people to see and touch the face of america. it's no understatement that our diplomats are on the front lines of the world's most dangerous places. they leave their families behind, they miss holidays at home, they risk their safety to make the world safer and to protect the interests of our

country. they don't join the foreign service to get rich and, sadly, many of them are only, their names are only learned when a tragedy like benghazi takes place. our diplomats don't wear a uniform, but they swear the same oath as the men and women of our armed forces, and their sacrifice is no less important. so take note, everybody, as we learned yesterday, the board's report calls for an investment of $2.3 billion a year over ten years in order to meet the fundamental charge of protecting our personnel overseas. we owe it to them, to our responsibility and to the memory of chris stevens and those others who lost their lives to make good on that request. and i make that clear today. some may ask why, why we're in benghazi. the reasons are really central

to everything that we want our foreign service to do. we want -- they're essential to advancing america's values and furthering our security. we're in benghazi because that's where the revolution in libya began. that's where the vanguard of the transition is today. that's where some principal actors in the future of libya come from. we were there to learn and help libyans deliver on the promise of their revolution x. many of our most important contacts in the future -- and the future leaders of libya reside in the volatile east. we have to be on the ground outside the wire, reaching out to those people. that's the enterprise of u.s. foreign policy today, to help men, women and children around the world share in the vision of democracy and the values of freedom and through it to bring stability to whole regions of the world and reduce the threats to our nation. i believe we all ought to be very proud of what we have

achieved in libya. by taking military action when we did, we liberated a country that had been under the yoke of a dictator for more than 40 years. we gave the libyan people a fighting chance for tear future, and i am -- for their future. the tragic events of the last 9/11 $2012 illustrate the magnitude of the challenge ahead, but the thousands of everyday libyans who marched in outrage against the militias with signs declaring their love for chris stephens and for the united states, their great -- gratitude for our country provide, i think, a measure of hope. that demonstration of afiction for america and for our envoy who gave his life for those people summed up exactly why we must not look inwards and walk away. finally, let me just say that what happened in benghazi really can't be seen in isolation. there's a truth about diplomacy

and foreign service that needs to be processed through the committee and the congress and the country as we examine the events of men ghazi. we have an expeditionary diplomatic corps, and they do face very real risks every day, day in and day out. bad things have happened before, and bad things will happen again, unfortunately, in the future. there will always be a tension between the diplomatic imperative to get outside the wire and the security standards that require our diplomats to work behind high walls and full-body searches. we do not want to conner is tee that wire america off from the world. our challenge is to strike a balance between the necessity of the mission, available resources and toll wraps for risk -- tolerance for risk. we've talked about this on this committee.

we've had hearingsings specifically about the design of our embassies, the danger of becoming a fortress america. we need to be safe, but we also need to send the right message to the people that we're trying to reach. i distinctly remember feeling and seeing the difficulty of this in vietnam where villages would examine us suspiciously and give us a stare, an unmistakeable stare that raises many more questions than we're ever able to answer. in iraq and afghanistan, i have revisited that stare. as you pass through a village with masses of guns and big armored personnel carriers and humvees, and be the look of confusion and alienation from average iraqis or afghans who just don't understand why we're rumbling through their streets that way is unmistakeable. i'll tell you, every diplomat worth their salt feels this tension and worries about the misimpression our security

footprint can create in the minds of the very people that we're trying to reach, an impression that is starkly revealed on their faces when you're surrounded by gun-toting security personnel. so balancing our values and our interests with the risks race hermit in 21 -- risks inherent in 21st centurity proposal si is sort of fuld to the events raised by the bebb ghazi. -- benghazi. we need to be in the business of risk management, not risk avoidance. so there are costs, but that's no reason to retrench from the world, and it's no -- it is, i think, a reason to honor the memory of ambassador stevens and the others who were deeply mitted -- committed to a strong american role in the world. that's why he was out there. so in the end, colleagues, we're all americans first. we can can't lose sight of that first, particularly in the face of this tragedy. we're very pleased that

secretary burns, secretary nides have come here today. secretary burns recently established the christopher stevens youth network to honor chris' memory by building bridges of understanding and compassion between youth and their middle eastern peers. we look forward to continuing that work with him. senator lugar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i join you in welcoming back secretary burns and tom nides. both are good friends to have committee, and we send our very best wishes to secretary clinton as she recovers from her mishap. secretary's pace of activities has been during the last several years extraordinary by any measure. we're grateful for her devoted service to our country and for the courtesy she has shown to our committee throughout her tenure. our or hearing today gives us a chance to review events at our consulate in benghazi that resulted in the deaths of

ambassador christopher stevens, foreign service officer sean smith, u.s. embassy security personnel glenn doherty and tyrone woods. many questions have been raised about this tragedy about this whether we had sufficient intelligence ahead of time and. ambassador stephens became a good friend to this committee. while he was detailed to my staff in 2006 and 2007. his advice to me on the complexities of events in the region was invaluable. after he went back to state, he continued to brief staff from time to time, and he returned to meet with me after his remarkable tour as a united states representative to the rebels in benghazi. all of us have read accounts of chris stevens' extraordinary service. he was personally instrumental in advancing u.s. interests in

libya. chris was providing the aind of energetic leadership we need for our embassy teams. he went beyond the walls to meet and converse with soldiers, shopkeepers and villagers as well as ministers and generals and bureaucrats. like united states embassy personnel around the world, and his team recognized that effective diplomacy in this era carries substantial risk. nevertheless, it is up to the president, the state department and the congress to insure that our diplomats have enough support and security to do their jobs as safely as possible. and just as we give our men and women in uniform the weapons they need to carry out their mission, we must make sure our diplomats have all the tools that they need which include a safe place to work. embassies are both outposts of the united states government and symbols of our country, and as such they've been prime targets for terrorists. almost every day the united states receives threats against its embassies, consulates and

other diplomatic facilities overseas. when i became chairman of this committee for the second time in 2003, one of the first things i did was to initiate an inquiry into embassy security. we conducted a hearing and numerous briefings on the topic, and my staff interviewed dozens of security and diplomatic personnel at embassies around the world. i also commissioned a gao report that was completed in 2006, and that report noted the significant progress that had been made by the state department in building secure embassies in a cost efficient manner. it recommended that the state department develop a comprehensive facilities plan to more closely track costs and results. working with former secretary of state powell, we initially were successful in getting extra money to accelerate the embassy construction program. but in my view funds for this purpose have never caught up to the threats faced by our

diplomats in the post-9/11 world. there have been suggestions that cost considerations contributed to the inadequate protection in benghazi. last week as preparations for this hearing were getting under way, the state department announced it would seek $1.4 billion in the 2013 budget for an increased security proposal based on recent review of the worldwide security posture. i am pleased to see the proposal notes, quote: we must insure we strike the right balance between security and engagement, end of quote. i'll be interested to hear from the panel how the obama administration would apply these funds and how they would effect the pace of new embassy construction and staffing levels at the diplomatic security service. in the end, however, our embassies are unlikely to be both effective and safe if congress fails to devote adequate funding to the 150 account which pays for state

department operations. we should not forget lessons learned in the '90s when the sharp budget cuts at state department at the same time we were establishing many new embassies in the former soviet union and the balkans. this funding squeeze resulted in clear deficiencies in our overall diplomatic capabilities that took years to correct. the state department budget remains a popular target for cuts. in recent years we have avoided the type of funding decline that the state department experienced in the 1990s. but it's still common for congress to vote on indiscriminate proposals that show little understanding of the contributions of the state department to the safety can and prosperity of our country. diplomacy is not a luxury. it is essential to american national security. especially in an era of terrorism. we should fund the state department as the national security agency that it is. i look forward to a discussion with our witnesses, and i thank the chair. >> senator lugar, thank you very much. if i could ask the committee,

i'm going to just take a moment. i will not ask questions, i'm going to yield my time so that others took more time, because i took a little longer with the opening, but i just want to say a special thank you. this will be senator lugar's last hearing, it's the committee's last hearing in this session, and i think whether you've served as chairman or as ranking member, dick, you've been just an extraordinary influence on all of us. i know the nunn-lugar initiative is synonymous with bipartisanship and serious foreign policy, and it stands as an amazing legacy. but i will always remember the work we did on the philippines. your efforts on the floor, you've always had this amazing humility and sense of purpose in finding the common ground and reaching out to people on both sides of the i'm. every member of the committee has joined in presenting you with a resolution, and i just

want to read just the introduction. whereas throughout his 36 years in the united states senate richard hue garre has served indiana, the united states with grace, distinction and tenacity and will have many more contributions to a nation still he reveres and that reveres him. and we want to present this to you, everybody on the committee, my friend. [applause] >> mr. chairman, i thank you very much. i'm very grateful to have had this opportunity to serve with each one of you. thank you. it's a very special tribute. >> thank you, sir. well, it's small compare today your service, but we honor you. and then, finally, we're also going to be losing jim webb and jim demint. jim, as we all know, jim webb

came here, did something very few freshmen can do by getting a major new piece of legislation passed, the new g.i. bill, and on the committee he's been really critical to our thinking about the far east. he was the first american to visit burma in ten years, and i'm proud to say i think i may have been the one who was there before that, but he changed the policy, he knew we had to lift the sanctions and move it, and his contribution to thinking about the trans-pacific partnership, the continued efforts on vietnam mias has been a superb contribution. he's a great thinker, and we appreciate his service. and jim demint, jim demint and i have, obviously, disagreed on a number of treaties and initiatives in front of the committee, bun of the great things about -- but one of the great things about jim demint is you know where he stands. he knows what he believes, we do. he's been a terrific advocate for his point of view, and we're

confident that in his, in the new hat that he's going to wear we're going to continue to debate and continue the feel his presence. and we thank him very much for his service on the committee also. so we thank both of them. gentlemen, thanks for putting up with her -- with our early efforts here on the committee. we appreciate your patience and thank you very, very much for being here today. the who is first or? secretary burns, you're going to lead off? thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. chairman, senator lugar, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity. secretary clinton asked me to express how much she regrets not being able to be here today, and i'd like to join you, mr. chairman, on behalf of the secretary and the men and women of the department of state in expressing our deep respect and admiration for the many years of service of senator lugar to our nation. since the terrorist attacks on our compounds in benghazi, state department officials and senior members from other agencies have testified in four congressional

hearings, provided more than 20 briefings and submitted thousands of pages of documents including the now-full-classified report of the accountability review board. secretary clinton has also sent a letter covering a wide range of issues for the record, so today i'd like to highlight just a few key points. the attacks in benghazi took the lives of four courageous americans. ambassador stevens was a friend and a beloved member of the state department community for 20 years. he was a dip lo o mat's diplomat, and he embodied the very best of america. even as we grieved for our fallen friends and colleagues, we took action on three fronts. first, we took immediate steps to further protect our people and our posts. we stayed in constant contact with embassies and consulates around the world facing large protests, dispatched emergency security teams, received reporting from the intelligence community and took additional precautions where needed. you'll hear more about this from

my partner, tom nyes. second, we intensified a dip lo matic campaign aimed at combating terrorism across north africa. we continue to work to bring to justice the terrorists responsible for the attacks in benghazi, and we are working with our partners to close safe havens, cut off terrorist finances and slow the flow of new recruits. and, third, secretary clinton ordered an investigation to determine exactly what happened in benghazi. i want to convey our appreciation to the accountability review board's chairman and vice chairman, ambassador tom pickering, and former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike moneyer. and also cat run bertini. the board's look takes a look at problems which are unacceptable, problems for which as secretary clinton has said we take responsibility, and problems which we have already begun to

fix. before tom walks you through what we're doing to implement fully all of the board's recommendations, i'd like to add a few words based on my own experiences as a career diplomat in the field. i had been a very proud member of the foreign service for more than 30 years, and i've had the honor of serving as a chief of mission overseas. i know that diplomacy, by its very nature, must sometimes be practiced in dangerous places. as secretary clinton has said, our diplomats cannot work in bunkers and do their jobs. when america is absent, there are consequences. our interests suffer, and our security at home is threatened. chris stevens understood that as well as anyone. crystals knew that every chief of mission has the responsibility to insure the best possible security and support for our people. as senior officials here in washington, we share that profound responsibility. we have to constantly improve, reduce the risks our people face

and make sure they have all the resources they need. that need colludes the men and women at the state department's diplomatic service. they are professionals and pate rots who seven where there are little or no u.s. military presence. it's important to recognize that our colleagues at home and abroad get it right countless times a day for years on end in some of the toughest circumstances manageable. we cannot lose sight of that. but we learned some very hard and painful lessons in eleven ghazi. we were -- benghazi. we are already or acting on them, we have to do better. we owe it to our colleagues who host their lives in benghazi, we owe it to the security professionals who acted with such extraordinary heroism that awful night to try to protect them, and we owe it to thousands of our colleagues serving

america with great dedication every day in diplomatic posts around the world. we will never prevent every act of terrorism or achieve perfect security, but we will never stop working to get better and safer. as secretary clinton has said, the united states will keep leading and keep engaging around the world include anything those hard race places where america's interests and values are at stake. thank you very much. >> secretary nyes. >> mr. chairman, senator lugar, members of the committee, i also want to thank you for this opportunity. i want to reiterate what bill has said. all of us have a responsibility to provide the men and women who serve this country with the best possible security and support. from senior department leadership setting the leadership setting the to supervisors evaluating security needs, b to congress appropriating sufficient funds, we all share this responsibility. secretary clipton has said that

as secretary of state this is her greatest responsibility and her highest priority. today i will focus on the steps we have been taking at secretary clinton's direction and that we will continue to take. as bill said, the board reports takes a clear-eyed look at serious, systemic problem for which we take responsibility and that we have already begun to fix. we are grateful for the recommendations from ambassador pickering and his team. we accept every one of them. all 29 recommendations. secretary clinton has charged my office with leading a task force or that will insure that all 29 are implemented quickly and completely. and to pursue steps above and beyond the board's report. the undersecretary of political affairs, the undersecretary for management, the director general of the foreign service and the deputy legal adviser will work with me to drive this forward. the task force has already met to translate the recommendation

into actual 60 specific action items. we've assigned every single one to the responsible bureau for immediate implementation, and several will be completed by the end of this calendar year. implementation of each and every recommendation will be underway by the time the next secretary of state takes office. there'll be no higher priority for the department in the coming weeks and months. and should we require more resources to execute these recommendations, we'll work closely with economists to insure that they are met. as i said and secretary clinton wants us to implement the arb's findings and do no more. let me offer some very clear specifics. for more than 200 years, the united states like every other country around the world has relied on host nations to provide security for embassies and consulates. but in today's threatening environment, we have to take a new and harder look at the capabilities and the commitments of our hosts.

we have to re-examine how we noter the places facing emerging threats where national security forces are fragmented or may be weak. so at secretary clinton's direction, we have moved quickly to conduct a worldwide review of our overall security posture with particular scrutiny on a number of high-of threat posts. with the department of defense, we've deployed five interagency security assessment teams made up of diplomatic and military security experts to 19 posts in 13 countries, an unprecedented cooperation between our departments can at a critical time. these teams have provided us a road map for addressing emerging security challenges. we're also partnering to send on 35 additional marine detachments. that's about 225 marines to medium and high-threat posts where it'll serve as visible te

tenderness to hostile tacts. this is on top of the approximately 150 detachments we have already deployed. we are aligning our resources to our 2013 budget request to address physical vulnerability, and we've enforced structures to reduce risk from fire. and let me add, we may need your help in insuring that we have the authority or to streamline the usual processes that produce faster results. we're seeking to hire more than 150 additional diplomatic security personnel, an increase of about 5%, and to provide them with the equipment and training they need. as the arb recommended, we are target them squarely -- we will target them squarely at securing our high-threat posts. i want to give praise for these brave security professionals. i have served in this department for only two years having come from the private sector. however, i have traveled to places like iraq and afghanistan and pakistan, and i've seen firsthand how these dedicated

men and women risk their lyes every day -- their lives every day. we owe them a debt of gratitude as they go to work every day to protect us in more than 270 posts around the world. and as we make these improvements in the field, we're also making changes here in washington. we've named the first-ever deputy assistant secretary for state for high-threat post within the bureau of diplomatic security. we're updating our deployment procedures to increase the number of experienced and well-trained staff everybodying in -- serve anything those posts, and we're working to insure making decisions about where our people operate in a way that shares our responsibility for security. our regional secretaries were directly involved in our interagency security process and will assume greater accountability for our people and our posts. we will provide the congress with a detailed report on every step we're taking to improve security and implement the board's recommendations. we'll look to you for support and guidance as we do this.

obviously, part of this is about resources. we must equip our people with what they need to deliver results safely, and we'll work with you as needs arise. but congress has a bigger role than that. you have visited our posts, you know our diplomats on the ground and the challenges they face. you know our vital national security interests are at stake and that we are all in this together. we look forward to working with you. thank you, mr. chairman, for your support and counsel and for this opportunity to discuss the important matters. we'd both be happy to take your questions. >> thank you very much, sec their nides and secretary burns. senator lugar is also going to yield his time, so we will go directly to senator boxer. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. and, senator lugar, i will miss you very much. i want to join in sending my very best wishes to secretary clinton as she recovers, and would you please tell her that all of us do. we would, we would like to get

that message to her. and i send my deepest thanks and grief once again to those that we lost, to the families of those that we lost. i know they are suffering especially many this holiday season. i praise secretary clinton for ordering a truly independent and tough investigation of what happened in benghazi. i attended a classified briefing with most of my colleagues yesterday, and while we can't say everything or much, i can say this: i found this to be an extraordinary presentation. it was clear, it was tough, and i believe if we don't listen and follow the recommendations, it would be a disaster for our people out there in the field. and i believe that we will. and i thank our chairman and our ranking for having this hearing, because i know it's the end of the year, but we have to change the way we view the security at

our missions because times are changing, and the needs are changing. um, look, let's be clear. the administration requested $2.6 billion for embassy and diplomatic security for fiscal year 2012, but the house cut this request by more than 300 million. now, we -- the senate -- helped restore some of the funds, but it still was $200 million short. now, i love our military bands. as a matter of fact, i always go to the concerts, and it's just important to note that in the house there was a, an amendment to cut some funds from the military bands which failed. and the funding for the military bands is $388 million. so all i want to say is we need to get our priorities straight around here, and we can't walk away and invite another, another tragedy. and as much as people like to

say, well, it's not the money, it's the money. you can't, you can't protect a facility without the funding. i'm looking at our security at our schools now just as a -- after the tragedy in connecticut. and it costs money to get the facilities hardened, to get the personnel that are needed. so i -- ambassador stevens was a proud californian. there's a hole in all of our hearts. i'm going to get to my questions. um, and i guess aisle going to ask it straight out. do you plan in the next budget to request the funding levels that are necessary for protecting all of our facilities? >> um, the answer to that is, yes, senator. i am, i am, although, aware -- as we all are -- in the con

statements in which we are living. to remind the committee, as you all are well aware, for everything we do at the state department, and that includes protecting over 275 locations around the world, for all of the assistance we provide including assistance to israel, all of our programs including pep far, everything we do at the state department, as secretary clinton has articulated many times, is less than 1% of our federal budget -- >> so my question is, are you going the submit to us a plan and the money request that you believe you need absolutely paying attention to fiscal constraints? we're not asking for bells and whistles. but will that be what you truly believe you need? because i hope so. because you can't count on us to know what the needs are. >> there's no question, senator boxer, that we will be doing so. as you know, secretary clinton asked us or ordered us to come to the congress and amend the 2013 budget request to do three

things; to pay for additional marine deployments in some of our high-risk posts, to add $750 million for constructionst cos and, three, to the increase diplomatic security about 5%. we are now in the midst of the 2014 budget process. we spend to come back to this committee once e do our assessments. as you know, as i pointed out earlier, we had assessment teams between the department of defense and the state department and looked at 19 high-risk posts -- >> i don't want to cut you off, but i only have a minute. so you are going to -- >> yes, absolutely. >> -- what you need, and that's important. and secondly, the trouble thing here is that there were repeated requests to implement security upgrades in tripoli and benghazi. and as we look at this report, we know what happened. and you would like to know do you intend to put it to

preface -- sorry, to put into place a preface that would allow for a second review of these requests by another body within the state department? because it seems like what happened is the request came, it went to one particular individual or desk, and then it never saw the light of day. ..

>> as you know, senator boxer, we rely on the commission which whatever over -- the fact for us on the ground is relying on the local government, the governments to protect us. we have to do that because we do not have the ability to have enough troops on the ground and most of the country will not allow us. so we are one of the tasks secretary clinton asked, when we send out the assessment team, to very good questions. i countries intent to protect us and their ability to protect us. sometimes those two are different. what we referred to as the new normal, we have to ask yourself those questions. >> would you write to us and let us know if there's any other -- that are relying on militia? thank you.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i, too, want to thank senator lugar for many, many years of great service and will miss him. and also want to wish secretary clinton a speedy recovery but i do think it's imperative, that we appreciate both of you, i think it's imperative that you can before this committee and i think it will be a shame to turn the page on this without, and go to a new regime without her being here. i do look forward to that happening, whenever her health permits. but i thank you for being here, and do want to say that i was on the ground in libya right after this happened. and was with our team there, and witnessed the shock of them losing the colleagues they lost. met the jsoc folks who were nothing short of absolute american heroes in what they did. but also witnessed the despair of a group of felt like i think they're out on a tether who did not have the support of washington.

i'm dismayed that this hearing has already centered on additional money, which may well be needed, but senator boxer just said, we would have no idea because we have never done a top to bottom review of the state department ever since i've been here in the minority for six years. i hope that will change with this next congress. so we have no idea whether the state department is using its money wisely or not. and i think that is a shame. to each of you i will tie you, what i saw in the report but a department that has corroded, that doesn't think outside the box, that is not using the resources that it has any kind of creative way. it's not prioritizing. i cannot imagine sending folks out to be not the after what we saw from the security cameras and the drones, i cannot imagine what people out there with a lack of security. it seems to me that what the state department would have done is to prioritize and, in fact,

if we cannot have people safely there, not something. i would just like a brief response from the sector as to why we did not prioritize that. secretary clinton just now sent out a notification to congress asking for $1.3 billion. why did she never asked for any notification or change of resources to make sure and ghazi was secured? why did that not happen? >> thank you, senator. as you know, we have fully and completely embraced the recommendation -- >> i understand. by the way, y'all had 18 aarp's in the past, and yet never fully implemented one yet. not one. so out of want to talk about this ard. a want to talk about why you did not ask for the resources for been guys just like was done this week on this ard.

come away. spend as you know, we must re-examine all of our high risk areas and determine the situation as we see, as new evolving risks are occurring, as you're well aware, we are in a situation where the middle east is evolving their democracies are growing. military starforming and we must look at each and every one of those sites. and everyone of our posts and re-examine under new normal speedy you are a where -- >> of the security threats. >> you were fully aware. and even you send people there with security or you don't send in there. i don't understand why didn't send a notification. with the cables coming in, with concerns about security, why didn't you do just what you did with this arb and seek additional funds? i don't understand. the appropriations committee has

never received from the state department a notification asking to shift funds for security in benghazi. i just wanted to tell me why that didn't happen. you do it all the time. it happens almost weekly. >> as you know we are constantly evaluating our security posture. we are constantly reevaluating where we need funds. and we are constantly reevaluate the current situation on the ground in all of our countries. as you are well aware, we have risks all over the world. were causally evaluating, determining, and clearly as was pointed out mistakes occurred. we need to examine those mistakes and we need to hold ourselves accountable and we need to figure out how to make sure this does not happen again. as i should point out, as you know, we get this right about 97% of the time. we would like to be at 100%. without question. with over 275 posts around the world.

our men and women are in danger all over the world. we attempt to try to do this 100%. we hope this arb and the recommendations we will learn from them and determined to make sure this does not happen again spent just one last point. there's been a lot of talk about money and it's amazing every time there's an issue, we start talking about more money. the fact is that you had 16 site security personnel came on the ground. they were at no cost to the state department. totally funded by the defense department. no money issue. they had been there for a long, long time. they have been extended multiple times at no cost to you other than allies for them to be the. defense department totally pay for them. aaa as they be extended and you didn't do. this has nothing to do with money. why did you not do that?

>> as you know, senator, that team was in tripoli was not benghazi. that team visited benghazi to times. but the team just to be clear was posted in tripoli. >> we only had a person to on the ground 40 days a year. i assume they would've traveled and been there when we had our ambassador there. so i just don't understand but you talk about money, but you had 16 people they're free from the defense department that requested that they stay and you deny that. i don't understand that. >> they were sent three times, and more importantly the team was, in fact, in tripoli if they did, in fact, visit benghazi a few times during their time. >> let me just say, i think you ask good questions but i would also ask you to review admiral mullen's and ambassador to greece request that has very

specific set of requirements with respect to funding a suspicion i have reviewed and i will say there've been 18 arb is, not a single one of them has ever been fully implemented. so i understand about this process. i'm just saying that the culture within the state department to me is one that needs to be transform. this committee can help. may be the next secretary of state can do. but the fact is there's a lot of work that needs to be done. >> senator menendez? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i, too, want to say that senator lugar, that he is leaving behind an extraordinary, at this point untreatable serving many of the ways in the future, but an extraordinary career, and a lasting legacy in so many different ways that we appreciate your service, and certainly remember ambassador stevens as the hallmark of what foreign service is all about. you know, our challenge both here at home and abroad in the

context of terrorism is that the terrorists have to only be lucky once. we have to get it right 100% of the time. it's a heavy burden. and not an easy one. and, obviously, this time we didn't get it right. but state acknowledges where it made a mistake. but i find it extraordinary, congress is always regretted doing, only casting blame and once i but never seeming to take any responsibility of its own. and i still hear voices that were not accept responsibility. i hear about 18 accountability review boards but a don't believe -- visit administration 18 accountable review boards. i think it's the first if i'm not mistaken. so obvious that this is going back administrations, and you can't even implement all of an

accountability review board's recommendations if one of the recommendations, a significant part is about resources and you don't have the resources provided by the congress to meet those recommendations. so i think that we need to take this in the context of making sure that we collect both state and the congress a look at its responsibility protect our embassies under diplomatic personnel abroad. in that respect, reading direct from the unclassified section of the report, they say, the accountability review boards says, among various department euros and personal in the field there appeared to be a very real confusion over who ultimately was responsible and empowered to make decisions based on both policy and security considerations. can you tell me, ambassador, how we will change that? it sounds like there were silos. sounds like it was a lack of understanding and clear definition of responsibility. how are we going to meet that

challenge and changes in terms of that recommendation? >> as recommended by the arb, we are going to focus very clearly on the issue the organizational structure within diplomatic security. we are, too, we're going to look very closely at the involvement of the bureau, which oversees the countries in which the security recommendations are put forward. we are going to make sure that you medications between the field and diplomatic security is correct, and we will as suggested continue to make sure there are doublechecks to make make sure those requests are evaluated and looked at with a lot of eyeballs. so we're going to learn from what the arb has suggested as we look at the security requirements, to be very clear eyed about requests and determination of the security situation on the ground. >> are we going to have more of a horizontal effort here within

the department instead of silos and sharing both information and knowledge, but with a clear delineation of who has the ultimate responsibility? >> yes, sir. we need to learn from this. i think that's one of the lessons that came out of the report and we intend to incorporate that, not only in our thinking but in our reality how we do our operations. >> one of the other elements of the report is on intelligence, in essence an intelligence failure. in that we have relied upon specific threats as the basis of reacting and repairing versus a careful consideration to a threat generation in general. as a basis for improving security posture. can you talk about how the department seeks to issue the new reality? >> sure. i mean, that is a challenge that we need to be much more effective in addressing, both within the state department and also i think throughout the te